ArticlePrecision clinical medicine2025
A benchmarking study of copy number variation inference methods using single-cell RNA-sequencing data.
Article in Precision clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational strategies for copy number variation detection, disease association, and beyond.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Multi-modality Graph Representation Learning for Malignant Cell Identification from scRNA-seq using DeepMalignant.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- IND-enabling safety and efficacy of RPESC-RPE-4W, an adult RPE progenitor cell therapy for dry age-related macular degeneration.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- Benchmarking scRNA-seq Copy Number Inference: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Practitioner's Guide.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Re-analysis of single-cell transcriptomics reveals a critical role of TNS1 gene in driving contractile VSMC transdifferentiation into macrophage-like SMC and atherosclerotic plaque instability.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Article
- BayesCNV: A Bayesian Hierarchical Model for Sensitive and Specific Copy Number Estimation in Cell Free DNA.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Transcriptomic profiling of autoimmune hepatitis identifies TRAT1 as anFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Modeling and targeting general and chromosome-specific aneuploidy in cancer.Genes & development · 2025Review
- Identification of malignant cells in single-cell transcriptomics data.Communications biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) has emerged as a powerful tool for cancer research, enabling in-depth characterization of tumor heterogeneity at the single-cell level. Recently, several scRNA-seq copy number variation (scCNV) inference methods have been developed, expanding the application of scRNA-seq to study genetic heterogeneity in cancer using transcriptomic data. However, the fidelity of these methods has not been investigated systematically. Methods: We benchmarked five commonly used scCNV inference methods: HoneyBADGER, CopyKAT, CaSpER, inferCNV, and sciCNV. We evaluated their performance across four different scRNA-seq platforms using data from our previous multicenter study. We evaluated scCNV performance further using scRNA-seq datasets derived from mixed samples consisting of five human lung adenocarcinoma cell lines and also sequenced tissues from a small cell lung cancer patient and used the data to validate our findings with a clinical scRNA-seq dataset. Results: We found that the sensitivity and specificity of the five scCNV inference methods varied, depending on the selection of reference data, sequencing depth, and read length. CopyKAT and CaSpER outperformed other methods overall, while inferCNV, sciCNV, and CopyKAT performed better than other methods in subclone identification. We found that batch effects significantly affected the performance of subclone identification in mixed datasets in most methods we tested. Conclusion: Our benchmarking study revealed the strengths and weaknesses of each of these scCNV inference methods and provided guidance for selecting the optimal CNV inference method using scRNA-seq data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.